User talk:Zburh

English vs. Anglo-Saxon in reference to Ine's laws
Zburh, I saw your edit summary on the change you recently made to Ine of Wessex. Could you give me a little more detail on your reasoning? The source I cited for the comment, Barbara Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, uses "Anglo-Saxon" as compared to "British"; the translation in Whitelock's EHD uses "Welsh" instead of "British", and "Englishman" rather than "Anglo-Saxon". I've tended to use Yorke's terminology because I think "English" and "British" are just not plain enough to a reader unfamiliar with the material; they don't carry the right connotations. "British" is undesirable, just as "English" is, but at least for "English" I feel that "Anglo-Saxon" is a satisfactory substitute.

I don't have access to the original text of Ine's laws, so perhaps you're referring to the word choice there? Mike Christie (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike. The text of Ine's laws is available at . See clauses 68 ("Engliscmon", as distinct from "Wealh"), 90 ("Englisc", as distinct from "Wilisc") and 118 ("Engliscne").


 * My point in making the change is that "English" does not carry the wrong connotations, and it is the laws of Ine themselves that prove the point. Contrary to the efforts of many modern scholars to avoid seeing what is in front of their noses regarding the origins of the English identity, there is nothing anachronistic about the use of the term as an ethnic identifier when discussing Ine's time or any subsequent period, and it seems likely that the same could be said of earlier periods if only we had the evidence to show it. What the laws show is the extraordinary fact that, in the most formal, public and technical of contexts, the Saxon king of a Saxon kingdom (whose fortunes and perhaps its very survival were threatened by a more powerful and recurrently hostile Anglian neighbour) saw fit to use a single term to characterise the Germanic inhabitants of Britain, and that that term was "English". Unless you argue that the text of the laws was doctored at a later date (which is not a view I have come across anywhere, though that may just show my ignorance), they amount to the most convincing proof that any one source could possibly give that by Ine's time the Germanic peoples of Britain recognised a collective identity encompassing all of them, and that the word they used for it was "English".


 * As I see it, it is "Anglo-Saxon" which is the term of dubious validity whose implications are commonly inherently misleading and whose use should at all turns be scrutinised and specifically justified. Apart from the short-lived title formula "Rex Angulsaxonum" I cannot off the top of my head think of any contemporary usage of it, and certainly there is no evidence that anybody ever thought of themselves, or of anyone else, as an Anglo-Saxon. Essentially it is an anachronistic imposition of modern historians, like "Viking" or "Byzantine" (both of which also irritate me, but that's another hobbyhorse for another day). It is a helpful contrivance when dealing with the first formative couple of centuries or so of Germanic society in Britain, but actively obstructive thereafter.


 * I realise that this view does not accord with the terminological consensus, and that Wikipedia is keen on consensus. However, given that in this particular case we are dealing with a word which is there in black and white in the actual text and actually conveys to the average modern reader essentially the same meaning that it would have done to its original audience, it seems perverse to replace it with something else.


 * I do tend to agree with the replacement of "Welsh" with "British" though, since "Welsh" is so firmly wedded in modern parlance to the people east of the Severn and its unglossed use with its former meaning is liable to mislead many readers.


 * Zburh 21:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are good points. I think we can leave it as you made it.  I am a bit concerned that it introduces the term "English" where previously the word "Anglo-Saxon" had been used to mean the invaders in general, so now the article is a bit inconsistent in its usage.  I think it's true to say that a Saxon king using "English" is notable, but it would be good if we can find a scholarly source that points out the notability of this term -- that would allow us to avoid a charge of original research.  I don't know of any discussions of terminology that mention this, though.  I have seen passing comments (e.g. on the use of Rex Angul-Saxonum) but I haven't read a discussion of the development of English identity that looks at the development of the terminology.  Do you know of anything like that?  Quite aside from supporting the change you've made, it would be a great source to cite.  Mike Christie (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly first became aware of the terminology in the laws and its significance from something that someone else had written, rather than from looking at the text itself or from conversation or whatever, but I cannot just now remember where that was. It may well have been in an article by Patrick Wormald that I read a while back, which examined the question of why the collective term that emerged was derived from Angle rather than Saxon. I may need a bit of time to track it down and check, but I will let you know when I do.


 * Zburh 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply to your comment on my talk page; but yes, a sentence or two in the Ine of Wessex article sounds sensible. I watch the article, so I'll take a look if you do decide to have a crack at it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you've found the time; looks good. Thanks for the addition.  I really must get hold of that Wormald article; it gets cited a lot. Mike Christie (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page blanking
Hi, I've reverted your blanking of your talk page. It's generally considered bad form on Wikipedia, as it may indicate you are trying to hide something. :-) --Joowwww (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Really? WP:BLANKING says the user can do pretty much what they like on their own Talk page. WP:Don't restore removed comments is quite good too. Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars
As you may have noticed I nominated the article for FA status. Since your prose skills are definitely higher than mine and you have edited a large part of the lead, could you have a look at Tony's remarks and suggestions here? Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * After all the article was promoted and the discussion is closed, so no need to do anything! I think it is a great moment for all the main articles contributors! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please dont remove commanders from that table. --Wayiran (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? I did no such thing. I restored the Roman commanders who had been transferred to the Persian column to their correct position.Zburh (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Zbuhr, the lead was copy-edited by Finetooth during FAC, and I do not think the meaning was altered. The goal was per FA suggestions to tighten the prose. And I do think good job was done. I see no reason to rt these changes.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a nuisance, but there were alterations to the meaning.


 * "Durable cession of lands in the border zone in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD stemmed from negotiations during which one side was temporarily weaker than the other." This virtually removes both of the points being made. Firstly, in each case these territories had not been occupied by force beforehand. Secondly that the weakness of one side's negotiating position was not a product of the overall military situation but was in each case closely connected to the personal position of the ruler concerned. Narseh's family were effectively Roman hostages, Jovian's own survival depended on safely extricating his army and Khosrau II's return to power and probably his survival depended on buying Roman support. Consequently each was forced into making concessions which the general situation of his state might not have required. All this was lost due to the edit.


 * Changing the position of the paragraph break removed the two sentences that were moved, which relate to the last war's eventual failure to produce any lasting territorial changes, from its proper context in the paragraph relating to territorial stability.


 * "However, after a counter-offensive led by Heraclius, the Romans regained their lost territory in a final peace settlement." This removes this causal connection between the offensive and the territorial recovery. Small change, but a change, and I fail to see any stylistic benefit.


 * "The prolonged and escalating warfare of the sixth and seventh centuries left them exhausted and vulnerable. Advancing Muslim armies of the Caliphate in Arabia soon conquered the entire Sassanid Empire and deprived the Eastern Roman Empire of its Near Eastern and North African territories." This obscures the point being made, detaching the weakening of the two empires from the success of the Arab invasions and leaving the two things floating as random, unconnected sentences, rather than being integrated in a way that points to a causal connection. It removes the important point that the beginning of the Arab invasions followed swiftly on the end of the Roman-Persian war. It is also far from being an improvement in stylistic terms.
 * Zburh (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that there are alterations of meaning not in favor of the article's quality, I have no objection to fix them.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman-Persian again
Your input here would be highly appreciated.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can also comment here: Featured article review/Roman–Persian Wars. If you want of course, and if you have the appetite.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably best if I don't just at the moment. You seem to have said all that needs saying, and my patience with the individual responsible has worn a little thin, as you may gather from my latest remarks on the talk page (and those are the things that made it to the page, not the ones I typed and then deleted before posting!). I suspect that I would not do myself any credit if I returned to the fray in my current mood. Best to await developments for now. Zburh (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it is getting boring, but I would be grateful if you could have another look at the article's lead. I am afraid some further additions by Pmanderson made it even worse. Thanks in advance.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Yannismarou, could you please comment on recent entries by Pmanderson. --Larno (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy
Hello, the edits to the Royal Navy page look good, but a reminder that we really need verifiable sources for statements, particularly the early stuff which is a bit contentious. Also a reminder that the history section in the main RN page should be a summary, History of the Royal Navy is the main history page, we don't want the RN page getting too unwieldy again. Keep up the good work, thanks, Woody (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got a little carried away there. You start out meaning to tweak a couple of things and before you know it you've rewritten the whole article by increments. I suppose my defence on the length question is that it's better to be a little overlong than lopsided. Keep a historical summary too brief and after a while you get a few people coming along and feeling that some particular little incident that interests them should be included, with the result that hugely disproportionate attention ends up being given to some periods or events and none at all to others. The main history page is a bit of a case in point on this - just how much of that article is dedicated to discussing the unknown site of one rather insignificant battle in the reign of King Alfred?! The fuller the account, the less damage is done by such interventions. But I shan't kick and scream too loudly if you want to trim.
 * The history page is in need of some serious work, but I'm wary of the temptation to get sucked into spending days overhauling things. Wikipedia is bad for my health...
 * On the references, I confess that I am basically mainlining Rodger's Naval History of Britain, though I can supply the major primary sources for the Anglo-Saxon end of things. I can assemble supporting references from further secondary literature when I get the time, but it might not be straight away. Zburh (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Maps of American ancestries. It's an interesting article, but IMO not suitable for an encyclopedia. Feel free to disagree, or agree. Thanks. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Northumberland motto
Hi there - is there a source for the motto, please? I've failed to find one, on a quickish look. Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have one - the motto was not a new addition to the page on my part. It simply came to my attention that some eccentric individual had been going through all the county articles and deleting all the mottos which mentioned God (!), so I went through and put them back in again. Zburh (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Ellandun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Destructive edits to my Sections on Surrey
Zburh. Please state what you will permit in terms of sports. For instance, if grammar was lacking regarding the most popular UK team sport, association football, then you have just because you did not want to fix it yourself removed the hugely valuable comparision of the county's teams.

You've managed to remove all references to relevant places for people to row in the article Surrey. See Rowing (sport) and the UK's excellent medal tally from the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Furthermore and most shockingly you've removed the volleyball section when I have had no connection even with that sport but was drawn attention to it from other articles. I am really in need of some explanation about what you will tolerate and need you to launch a talk section, accept some must go back, and to start with please justify below.Adam37 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Bee Edit
Just a short note to ask you to please put a note in the edit description when you edit an article. I see that we lost 1120 characters in the article with your edit, but it is impossible to tell just what was taken out because so much was moved around. :) It looks like a fine edit, but really hard to see what was actually done, and why. ThanksPocketthis (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cloudesley Shovell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Vigo and Battle of Malaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peace of Turin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tana, Ottoman and Turkish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Towton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaufort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (1485 creation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret Beaufort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brunswick. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Surrey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crowhurst. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Surrey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Midlands ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Surrey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Surrey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Review of a featured article you frequently edited
I have nominated Roman–Persian Wars for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)